London Councils

Recruitment and Retention Strategy

Workforce Intelligence

Report Three

January 2007 INTRODUCTION

This is the third London Councils recruitment and retention (R&R) survey report. Replies, of varying completeness and quality, were received from twenty-eight out of the thirty-three boroughs, this equates to an 85% response rate.

One objective of the London Councils’ R & R strategy is to help bring about a sustained improvement in the coverage and quality of the boroughs' workforce information.

This survey has two primary purposes:

- to quantify on an objective basis the exact nature of the R&R difficulties faced in the occupations perceived as having the major shortages in London local government
- to review and comment on the quality of the information available

The survey collects vacancy, turnover and demographic data on the following eight occupational areas: social worker - community care; social worker - children & families; social worker - residential; building control; traffic and/or transportation engineering; environmental health; trading standards; and planning. The methodology used for this year’s survey is the same as for the previous two surveys.

The available evidence indicates that in the majority of boroughs - at least at the corporate level - there does not appear to be a huge demand for this type of information. Whether this is through lack of interest, or because boroughs struggle to provide it, requires further investigation.

Given this caveat, all figures reported need to be used with care.

SURVEY RESULTS: RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Employment: By Occupation

Total employment in the eight occupational groups covered by the survey is 11,964 head count, or 11,226.3 full-time equivalents (FTEs). They account for 7% of the head count general services workforce, and 9% of FTE workforce. This higher percentage of the FTE workforce reflects the fact that employees in the occupations covered by the survey work predominately on a full-time basis, whereas approximately 50% of the general services workforce is employed on a part-time basis.

The two largest occupational groups - by some way - covered by the survey are ‘social workers - children & families’ (approximately 35% of the FTE total) and ‘social workers - community care’ (27%). Including ‘social workers - residential’ (9%) brings the social workers figure up to 71% of the total. The other five occupations account for

______________________________________________________________________

1 Please refer to Reports One and Two for additional information. 2 A subsidiary purpose is to report on boroughs' R&R initiatives; refer Appendix IV. 3 Occupational therapists have been excluded as they are primarily a NHS occupation. 4 The Employers Organisation for local government survey 2005 reported 169,797 headcount and 123,086 FTEs in the London boroughs; figures include employees on local grades. approximately 29% of the total. The largest group, outside the social worker group, is planners (9% of the total) and the smallest is trading standards (3%).

Figure 1 shows the number of FTEs employed in each of the occupations.

**Figure 1: FTE Employment - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - April 2006**

![Bar chart showing FTE employment by occupation in London Boroughs for April 2006.]

**Vacancies: By Occupation**

Table 1 shows the vacancy rates in 2005/06 for the eight occupations covered by the survey. The occupation with the highest number of vacancies is ‘social workers - children & families’ with 1,380.7 FTE vacancies; transport engineering has the highest vacancy rate at 29.7%.

**Table 1: Vacancy Data - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - 2005/06**

| Occupation | Funded Posts (FTEs) | Employees in Post | Employees in Post (FTEs) | Vacant Posts (FTEs) | Vacancy Rate | Percent of Vacant Posts | |---------------------|---------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|--------------|------------------------| | SW - CC | 3930.5 | 3269 | 3080.2 | 850.3 | 21.6% | 25% | | SW - C & F | 5290.1 | 4138 | 3909.4 | 1380.7 | 26.1% | 40% | | SW - Residential | 1221.2 | 1077 | 984.1 | 237.1 | 19.4% | 7% | | Building Control | 560.8 | 463 | 455.8 | 105.0 | 18.7% | 3% | | Transport Engineering| 702.2 | 609 | 494.0 | 208.2 | 29.7% | 6% | | Environmental Health| 1097.1 | 940 | 901.9 | 195.3 | 17.8% | 6% | | Trading Standards | 446.2 | 386 | 361.8 | 84.4 | 18.9% | 3% | | Planning | 1394.1 | 1082 | 1039.1 | 355.0 | 25.5% | 10% |

Note: (i) Figures have been ‘grossed up’ to full response. (ii) ASWs included in SW - CC (iii) Levels I & II combined. (iv) The ‘percent of vacant posts’ column shows the relative position of each group, so, for example, 40% of all the vacancies identified are in ‘SW - C & F’. For the eight occupations combined there are 3,415.9 FTE vacancies. Although this figure is higher than the 3,237.6 reported in 2003/04, the increase was more than ‘offset’ by an increase in the number of ‘funded posts’ reported. Hence the decrease in the overall vacancy rate - falling from 25.4% to 23.3% - over 2003/04 to 2005/06.

A summary of the figures for the three surveys is as follows:

Table 2: Vacancy Data - Total - London Boroughs - 2003/04 to 2005/06

| Year | Funded Posts | Employees in Post | Vacant Posts | Vacancy Rate | Average per Borough | |--------|--------------|-------------------|--------------|--------------|---------------------| | 2005/06 | 14642.2 | 11226.3 | 3415.9 | 23.3% | 104 | | 2004/05 | 14322.0 | 10693.9 | 3628.0 | 25.3% | 110 | | 2003/04 | 12768.4 | 9530.8 | 3237.6 | 25.4% | 100 |

Note: (i) All Figures are FTEs. (ii) ‘Average per borough’ is the average number of vacant posts per borough; this figure is not weighted and is simply calculated by dividing the total number of vacancies by thirty-three.

For the 2004/05 and 2005/06 surveys the total number of ‘funded posts’ reported was broadly similar - 14,322.0 and 14,642.2 respectively. The total number of vacant posts reported decreased by just over two hundred - 3,628.0 to 3,415.9 - and the vacancy rate fell by two percentage points, 25.3% to 23.3%.

The figures also illustrate that R&R difficulties are confined to a relatively small number of posts; an average of approximately 100 to 110 per borough over the three surveys. There are obviously significant variations between individual boroughs and the averages obscure a wide range.

This year’s survey again highlights that the scale of the problem for ‘social workers’ is of a different order of magnitude to the other occupations. Of the 3,415.9 FTE vacancies reported, 2,468.1 are in the three social worker occupations, accounting for 72% of vacancies; with ‘social workers - children & families’ alone accounting for 40%. In total the other five occupations reported 947.9 FTE vacancies, or 28% of the total number of vacancies reported.

A summary of the figures for the three surveys is as follows:

Table 3: Vacancy Data - Social Workers/Others - 2003/04 to 2005/06

| Year | SW | Others | Total | Percent | |--------|------|--------|-------|---------| | | SW | Others | Total | SW | Others | Total | | 2005/06 | 2468.1 | 947.9 | 3415.9 | 72% | 28% | 100% | | 2004/05 | 2640.8 | 987.3 | 3628.0 | 73% | 27% | 100% | | 2003/04 | 2469.6 | 767.9 | 3237.6 | 76% | 24% | 100% |

Table 4 - overleaf - shows that the ‘ordinal rank order’ of vacancy rates are very similar for all three surveys, with differences limited to no more than one place.

Transport engineering, social workers - children & families and planners continue to occupy the ‘top’ three places with vacancy rates of 29.7%, 26.1% and 25.5% respectively. This year only four out of the eight occupations have vacancy rates exceeding twenty percent, compared to six in the previous two surveys. Table 4: Vacancy Rates - Ordinal Rank Order - 2003/04 to 2005/06

| Ordinal Rank Order | Occupation | 2003/04 Vacancy Rate | Occupation | 2004/05 Vacancy Rate | Occupation | 2005/06 Vacancy Rate | |--------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------| | 8 | Environmental Health | 14.0% | Environmental Health | 17.8% | Environmental Health | 17.8% | | 7 | Building Control | 17.5% | Building Control | 19.3% | Building Control | 18.7% | | 6 | Trading Standards | 21.7% | Trading Standards | 20.2% | Trading Standards | 18.9% | | 5 | SW - Community Care | 24.1% | SW - Residential | 21.6% | SW – Residential | 19.4% | | 4 | SW - Residential | 25.8% | SW - Community Care | 24.2% | SW - Community Care | 21.6% | | 3 | Planning | 26.1% | Planning | 28.0% | Planning | 25.5% | | 2 | Transport Engineering | 27.5% | SW - Children & Families | 28.3% | SW - Children & Families | 26.1% | | 1 | SW - Children & Families | 29.4% | Transport Engineering | 30.5% | Transport Engineering | 29.7% |

Given the overall quality of the information commenting with absolute certainty on the direction of change over the three surveys is problematic. The available data does however indicate that for:

- the social worker occupations - by far the largest group - the situation appears to have improved over the course of the three surveys; possibly indicating the range of R&R measures implemented by boroughs have had some impact
- trading standards - the smallest group - the situation appears to have improved over the course of the three surveys
- environmental health, building control and transport engineering while vacancy rates are higher than those reported in 2003/04 there has been no change or a slight fall between 2004/05 and 2005/06
- planners while vacancy rates increased between 2003/04 and 2004/05, they are now marginally lower than the figures reported in 2003/04

The figures shown in Table 5 and Figure 2 highlight these changes in more detail. For example, vacancy rates for social workers - community care (25% of all vacancies) and social workers - children families (40% of all vacancies) have fallen by 2.5 percentage points and 3.3 percentage points respectively over the period 2003/04 to 2005/06.

Definitive comment on the changes requires the ‘triangulation’ of these results with research from other sources.

Table 5: Vacancy Rates and Changes - Selected Occupations - 2003/04 to 2005/06

| Occupation | Vacancy Rates | Percentage Point Change | Index | |-----------------------------|---------------|-------------------------|-------| | | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2004 - 05 | 2005 - 06 | 2004 - 06 | 2003/04 =100 | | SW - Community Care | 24.1% | 24.2% | 21.6% | 0.1% | -2.6% | -2.5% | 89.6 | | SW - Children & Families | 29.4% | 28.3% | 26.1% | -1.1% | -2.2% | -3.3% | 88.8 | | SW - Residential | 25.8% | 21.6% | 19.4% | -4.2% | -2.2% | -6.4% | 75.2 | | Building Control | 17.5% | 19.3% | 18.7% | 1.8% | -0.6% | 1.2% | 106.9 | | Transport Engineering | 27.5% | 30.5% | 29.7% | 3.0% | -0.8% | 2.1% | 108.0 | | Environmental Health | 14.0% | 17.8% | 17.8% | 3.9% | 0.0% | 3.8% | 127.1 | | Trading Standards | 21.7% | 20.2% | 18.9% | -1.5% | -1.3% | -2.8% | 87.1 | | Planning | 26.1% | 28.0% | 25.5% | 2.0% | -2.6% | -0.6% | 97.7 |

Note: Figures have been ‘grossed up’ to full response with estimates made for missing information.

(ii) All figures are rounded.

Figure 2: Changes - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - 2003/04 to 2005/06 Vacancies: Including Agency Cover

In reality some vacant posts are ‘covered’ by agency staff. In order to estimate the ‘net vacancy rate’ the survey collects information on the number of agency staff engaged by boroughs in each of the eight occupations.

Table 6 summaries the position.

Table 6: Vacancy Rates - Including Agency Staff Cover

| Occupation/ Vacancy Rates | 2005/06 | 2004/05 | |---------------------------|---------|---------| | | Vacancy Rates (1) | Vacancy Rates (2) | Vacant Posts Covered by Agency Staff | Vacancy Rates (1) | Vacancy Rates (2) | Vacant Posts Covered by Agency Staff | |---------------------------|------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------| | Trading Standards | 18.9% | N/A | N/A | 17.1% | N/A | N/A | | SW - Community Care | 21.6% | 14.1% | 35% | 25.1% | 14.0% | 44% | | Building Control | 18.7% | 11.4% | 39% | 17.2% | 7.6% | 56% | | Planning | 25.5% | 14.7% | 42% | 27.8% | 18.7% | 33% | | Environmental Health | 17.8% | 10.1% | 43% | 18.2% | 14.7% | 19% | | SW - Residential | 19.4% | 9.1% | 53% | 21.7% | 13.6% | 37% | | Transport Engineering | 29.7% | 11.8% | 60% | 28.0% | 13.8% | 51% | | SW - C & F | 26.1% | 10.4% | 60% | 28.5% | 12.2% | 57% |

Notes: (i) Vacancy Rate (1) excludes agency staff covering vacant posts; Vacancy Rate (2) includes vacancy cover. (ii) Trading standards not shown as very little data is available.

The figures indicate that approximately 35% to 60% of vacant posts are covered by agency staff, depending on the occupation. Unsurprisingly approximately 80% of all agency staff work in the three social worker occupations; with ‘social workers - children & families’ accounting for over half of the overall total.

Overall it is estimated that approximately 50% of vacancies (for the eight occupations listed in the survey) are covered by agency workers; the same as in 2004/05. In 2003/04 it was estimated that approximately 60% of vacant posts were covered by agency staff.

Only around 50% of boroughs provided any information on agency staff; so caution should therefore be exercised when using these figures. The number of agency staff employed adds complexity to assessing the exact size and nature of the boroughs’ workforce, as demographic information is not available to the same extent as the directly employed workforce. This point was highlight to in the first report:

“The lack of information on agency workers should not be underestimated as a management issue for the boroughs... There is nothing intrinsically wrong with employing agency workers; the lack of data, their (over) extensive use in certain services and whether they are used in an optimum way may however be a concern. Agency workers clearly provide a degree of flexibility to meet short term or variable service needs. But there are issues of ensuring effective procurement arrangements and identifying where an over reliance on agency workers may have a negative impact on service delivery/consistency.”

5 ALG Recruitment and Retention Strategy, Report Number One, October 2004 Best estimates available indicate that approximately one in ten people working in the occupations covered by the survey is an agency worker. For social workers - children & families the figure increases to just under one in five.

SURVEY RESULTS: EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

Source of Starters and Destination of Leavers

The survey also attempted to collect information on the ‘origin’ of starters and the ‘destination’ of leavers. The primary objective in collecting this information was to help inform the development of R&R policy and to provide source data for calculating turnover by occupation. Boroughs found it very difficult to produce this information.

With only around 50% of boroughs providing any response - the majority of which were far from comprehensive - data for this category was scarce.

The figures shown in Table 7 - overleaf - are therefore for illustration only

The figures show that, even where boroughs attempted to provide information, the source of 48% of ‘starters’ was not known; 11% of starters were recruited from agency staff who were previously working for the borough.

Again using the limited data available, the figures show that ‘voluntary leavers’ account for 90% of all leavers - 594 out of a total of 658 leavers reported; a higher percentage than the London local government ‘all employee’ figure of 60%6.

Restricting the analysis to voluntary leavers shows that the destination of 57% of leavers was not known; 28% moved within local government; 7% moved outside the sector to another employer; and 1% went to work for an agency.

The figures also show a negative balance of six percentage points when comparing leavers ‘to other London boroughs’ compared ‘to other local authorities’; 11% and 17% respectively. This possibly illustrates a net movement of staff to outside the capital; more robust data is however necessary before offering a definitive comment.

There was a balance of +112 (17%) of starters over leavers; 770 compared to 658.

Again it must be stressed that these figures are shown for illustration only to highlight the type of analysis which could be undertaken if the figures were more robust.

Employee Turnover

A number of boroughs supplied figures on leavers without being able to provide information on their destination; hence more data was available for the basic employee turnover calculation. It was still not possible however to calculate employee turnover rates by individual occupation with a reasonable measure of certainty.

______________________________________________________________________

6 London Councils, Employee Turnover In The London Boroughs, Benchmarking Report Number Seven, December 2006. Best estimates indicate that the employee turnover rate is in the 10% to 15% range for all eight occupations; the figures suggest that social workers - children & families and planners have the highest rates.

The median rate for all eight occupations is approximately 11%. Voluntary turnover - according to the calculations possible from the data - accounts for 85% of the total.

The results of the London Councils’ Employee Turnover Survey 2005/06 show that the ‘all employees’ turnover rate is 14.4% with a resignation rate of 8.7%. As indicate above resignations account for 60% of the ‘all employee’ turnover rate.

Some caution is however required when interpreting these figures, as it is difficult to assess how the use of agency staff is influencing employee turnover rates. If boroughs are increasingly turning to agency staff for the ‘difficult to recruit’ occupations, this could have the effect of reducing the turnover rate reported, as they are not directly employed and would not therefore be included in any figures reported.

### Table 7: Source of Starters/Destination Leavers - Selected Occupations

| Employees Starting: Sources | Total | Percentage | |---------------------------------------------------|-------|------------| | Previously An Agency Worker In The Borough | 86 | 11% | | All Other Sources | 314 | 41% | | Not Known | 370 | 48% | | **Total: Starters** | 770 | 100% |

| Employees Voluntarily Leaving: Reasons | Total | Percentage (1) | Percentage (2) | |---------------------------------------------------|-------|----------------|----------------| | Internal Move/Promotion | 14 | 2% | 2% | | Same Occupation – To Other London Borough | 67 | 10% | 11% | | Same Occupation – To Other Local Authority | 103 | 16% | 17% | | Same Occupation – To Other Employer (Non LG\*) | 42 | 6% | 7% | | Same Occupation - To Agency Work | 8 | 1% | 1% | | Leaving Occupation | 22 | 3% | 4% | | Other/Not Known | 338 | 51% | 57% | | **Total: Leavers – Voluntary** | 594 | 90% | 100% |

| Employees Leaving: Other Reasons | Total | Percentage (1) | Percentage (2) | |---------------------------------------------------|-------|----------------|----------------| | Retirements | 23 | 3% | 36% | | Dismissals | 11 | 2% | 17% | | Redundancies | 3 | 0% | 5% | | TUPE Transfers | 2 | 0% | 3% | | Other/Not Known | 25 | 4% | 39% | | **Total: Leavers - Other Reasons** | 64 | 10% | 100% | | **Total All Leavers** | 658 | 100% | | | **Balance: Starters/Leavers** | 112 | 17% | |

Note: **Percentage (1)** shows the percentage of ‘all leavers’, for example, 3% of all leavers left the occupation. **Percentage (2)** shows percentage of the specified ‘Reason’, for example, 36% of ‘Other Reasons’ were retirements; although retirements only account for 3% of all leavers. SURVEY RESULTS: WORKFORCE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Occupational Group Profile

For five of the eight occupations the survey collects demographic workforce information; covering age, gender and ethnicity. As a general observation the quality and coverage of this data has improved over the course of the three surveys. The overall 'not known' figure has fallen from approximately thirty percent for all three categories in the first survey to around 5% to 10% for the 2005/06 survey.

Encouragingly the figures for the 2005/06 survey - excluding 'not known' - are broadly in line with the figures for the 2003/04 and 2004/05 surveys.

The figures highlight that there are clear differences across the occupational groups with, for example, women disproportionately represented in the social worker occupations. The 2005/06 figures show that:

- Approximately 2% of the workforce is aged twenty-four or under; this is not unexpected given the nature of the jobs.
- For planning and social workers - children & families nearly 45% of the workforce is in the 25 to 39 age band; this contrasts with transport engineering where only 27% of the workforce is in this age band.
- For ASWs and transport engineering over 30% of the workforce is in the 50 to 64 age band; approximately two in five transport engineers are fifty or older.
- Gender segregation is most marked for social workers - children & families (78% female) and transport engineering (79% male).
- Environmental health officers (57% male), planners (59% male) and ASWs (62% female) have more balanced workforces.
- Approximately 33% of social workers - children & families are Black; 16% of transport engineers are Asian; and 81% of planners are White.

Table 8 and Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 show the full results.

When interpreting the figures it is important to note that they relate only to the directly employed workforce and the age, gender and ethnicity profiles of the indirect workforce, for example agency staff, is not known. This point is important as there is anecdotal evidence that suggests that for particular occupations, agency workers are becoming an increasingly prominent part of the ‘workforce’.

In an attempt to fill this information gap the knowledge exchange initiative has been developed; refer to ‘improvement actions’ for additional information.

______________________________________________________________________

7 Social worker - community care (ASW only), social worker - children & families, transport engineering, environmental health and planning Table 8: Age, Gender & Ethnicity - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - 2005/06

| Occupation/Category | Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |---------------------|-----|--------|-----------| | | 16 to 24 | 25 to 39 | 40 to 49 | 50 to 64 | 65 and older | Male | Female | White | Mixed | Asian | Black | Chinese | Other | | SW - CC, ASWs only | 0% | 28% | 39% | 32% | 1% | 38% | 62% | 65% | 2% | 7% | 24% | 1% | 2% | | SW - C & F | 1% | 44% | 33% | 22% | 0% | 22% | 78% | 52% | 3% | 8% | 33% | 0% | 3% | | Transport Engineering | 3% | 27% | 30% | 39% | 1% | 79% | 21% | 68% | 1% | 16% | 11% | 2% | 3% | | Environmental Health | 2% | 38% | 34% | 25% | 0% | 57% | 43% | 73% | 3% | 6% | 16% | 1% | 1% | | Planning | 4% | 44% | 28% | 24% | 0% | 59% | 41% | 81% | 2% | 6% | 9% | 2% | 1% |

Notes: (i) Figures based on actual data provided - the ‘not known’ percentages are as follows: 6% for age; 5% for gender; and 10% for ethnicity. Including these figures would decrease the other percentages accordingly. Refer to Appendix I for further information. (ii) Percentages may not always sum to 100 because of rounding. Local Government Workforce Profile

The results of the Employers Organisation General Services Pay Survey 2005 show that London local government (non-teaching) workforce is 72% female and 28% male.(^8)

This survey(^9) also shows that the workforce in London comprises: White (69.4%); Mixed (1.7%); Asian (8.5%); Black (18.4%); and Chinese/Other (2.0%). According to the Census, April 2001 (ONS) the population of London comprises: White (71.15%); Mixed (3.15%); Asian (12.09%); Black (10.91%); Chinese (1.12%); and Other (1.58%).

The Labour Force Survey(^10) shows that: 40% of London’s local government workforce is in the 16 to 39 age group compared to 58% in other sectors; 30% is in the 44 to 49 age group (24% other sectors); and 31% are fifty or over (19% other sectors).

These figures highlight that the local government workforce is older than the workforce generally in the Capital. Refer to Table 9 and Figure 1.4 for full details.

Table 9: Age Distribution - London Local Government and Other Sectors

| Age Range/ Sector | London Local Government | Other Sectors | Difference – | |-------------------|-------------------------|---------------|--------------| | 16 - 19 | 2% | 3% | -1% | | 20 - 24 | 4% | 11% | -6% | | 25 - 29 | 10% | 17% | -6% | | 30 - 34 | 10% | 14% | -4% | | 35 - 39 | 13% | 13% | 0% | | 40 - 44 | 15% | 13% | 2% | | 45 - 49 | 15% | 11% | 4% | | 50 - 54 | 14% | 8% | 6% | | 55 - 59 | 10% | 7% | 4% | | 60 - 64 | 5% | 3% | 2% | | 65+ | 2% | 1% | 0% | | Total | 100% | 100% | |

Note: (i) The Other Sectors percentages exclude local government. (ii) All figures are rounded to nearest whole number. (iii) Percentage point difference shown.

______________________________________________________________________

(^8) EO General Services Pay Survey 2005, excluding employees above SCP 49 and local grades.

(^9) Figures based on the 88% of the workforce whose ethnicity is known.

(^10) An LGAR analysis of the LFS, July-Sept 2006, Public Files. Figure 3.1: Age Profile - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - April 2006

Figure 3.2: Gender Profile - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - April 2006 Figure 3.3: Ethnicity Profile - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - April 2006

Figure 3.4: Age Distribution - London Local Government/Other Sectors SURVEY RESULTS: QUALITY OF INFORMATION

As indicated the survey does not appear to be a priority for the majority of boroughs. The speed of response to this year’s survey was a lot slower than for the first two surveys. Questions about the quality of the information remain; this is not only a problem in London local government but also nationally and in other sectors.

The quality of the demographic data covering age, gender and ethnicity is continuing to improve in the majority of boroughs. But there are still difficulties:

- in classifying jobs into meaningful occupational groups
- providing consistent year-on-year data - the information becomes more meaningful if robust longitudinal trends can be produced
- reporting vacancies in boroughs that do not have an ‘establishment’ list of posts
- reporting the number of posts covered by agency staff
- providing robust occupational specific turnover
- providing monitoring information covering the source of the people recruited and destination of leavers

The aim of the survey is to collect information in a standardised format. The diversity of the management information systems used, allied to different internal occupational and other coding systems, means that trying to ensure the information provided is essentially the same from borough to borough and year-on year is problematic.

Additionally, a number of boroughs do not appear to make use of an occupational coding system when compiling the figures, and group the data simply by using job title. This makes compiling consistent year-on-year information even more problematic.

The challenges boroughs have in completing the R&R survey need to be placed in the context of the wider challenges they face generally in reporting and using people-related information. They are simply a sub set of these wider challenges, and improvements in the provision of information for this survey will only come about through wider organisational development interventions.

The stated aim of the survey is to provide information to help boroughs and London Councils better identify and understand the nature and extent of the R&R difficulties faced by the boroughs, in order to develop successful solutions.

So how much progress has been made?

Boroughs appear to have made most progress in what can perhaps be best described as the demographic workforce data: age, ethnicity and gender. The likely reason for this is that the majority of boroughs report this information internally on a regular basis and the requirement to report gender and ethnicity information for the BVPIs.

Reporting information by occupation appears to be far less frequent and hence the information held by the boroughs is less comprehensive. This possibly reflects the view that there is little corporate will to ‘map out’ the R&R difficulties across the organisation and report them at the corporate level. Vacancy and employee turnover data do not appear to be rigorously tracked by, or reported to, the corporate centre. Additionally, a systematic approach to providing a series of reports to evaluate the success of any R&R intervention still appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

Some boroughs find producing and using workforce information more of a challenge than others. A number of activities to help boroughs to better use workforce information - by developing skills in reporting and interpreting information - have been initiated.

The information produced needs to be used by decision makers; there is not overwhelming evidence that this actually happens in practice to any great extent. If there is little interest in this type of information among decision makers, and it is not used for internal management purposes, the accuracy of the survey, or in fact its completion, is less important to the borough.

The question is how to generate increased interest across all the boroughs and among senior management for decision making purposes.

**IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS**

The development and monitoring of R&R initiatives should ideally be informed by comprehensive workforce intelligence. The provision of workforce intelligence is however a role which HR appears willing to deprioritise as it is not - as a generalisation – one it necessarily fills with comfort. The provision of corporate level workforce intelligence is a struggle for some boroughs. There also appears to be limited interest in the information from senior management, at least when acting in their corporate capacity. Whether this is because their requests for information have not been met because HR cannot provide the data or because it is thought to be unimportant is not known and needs to be further researched.

**IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS: BY BOROUGHS**

There are however signs that a number of boroughs are showing far greater interest in this area - at least at an operational level - and are investing in their capacity and capability. For example, one borough has now created a workforce information team and has three HR planning analysts working as part of this team.

A number of other boroughs are also showing increasing interest.

**IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS: LONDON COUNCILS AND BOROUGHS**

London Councils has undertaken a range of activities to try and improve the quality and use of workforce information in the boroughs. These can be broadly characterised as ‘workforce intelligence research’ and ‘improving knowledge and skills’.

**WORKFORCE INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH**

Information from London Councils R&R research has been used in a number of studies, for example, the recent R&R report on planners(^\\text{11}) and the London Centre of Excellence’s work on the use of temporary, agency and interim staff(^\\text{12}).

(^{11}) Recruitment And Retention Of Planners In London: A report for London Councils(^\\text{11}), by Tim Edmundson & Elizabeth Rawson, November 2006. Additionally, London Councils - in conjunction with a number of boroughs - has undertaken the following research activities.

**Recruitment & Retention Barometer**

As the R&R survey is proving problematic to complete, as a supplementary measure, a secondary source has been developed - the R&R Barometer - which provides a simpler analysis of the problems faced by the boroughs. It is however based on a format most boroughs can complete. The R&R Barometer is published annually.

**Workforce Intelligence Diagnostic Tool**

London Councils commissioned a small scale research project(^{13}) to identify what differentiates the ‘good’ from the ‘less good’ in the provision of workforce information. The research was undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES), and has been used to inform improvement actions at borough and pan-London levels.

Additionally, based on this research, a diagnostic tool(^{14}) was developed that aims to provide boroughs with insights into their capacity and capability for producing workforce intelligence, and help them develop any necessary improvement plans.

**Workforce Intelligence Template**

Although spending on the workforce typically accounts for around 60% to 70% of expenditure in a borough, the London Councils research identified that - as a generalisation - little information on the workforce is reported to the senior management. There is certainly very little which relates to how the workforce helps the organisation achieve its strategic objectives. This situation gives considerable scope for boroughs to better use management information on people-related issues, to highlight how good people management practices can in-turn lead to improved organisational performance.

It is therefore proposed to develop a senior management workforce intelligence template. The rationale for the template is based on the simple premise:

“What workforce intelligence do chief executives (and the senior management team) need to help them manage the organisation effectively?”

The proposal also aligns with one of the Audit Commission’s strategic objectives: improving the quality and use of information for decision-making purposes(^{15}).

London Councils is working with a borough and the IES on this project.

______________________________________________________________________

(^{12}) Transforming the Procurement of Temporary, Agency and Interim Staff: Pan London Collaboration Opportunities, Centre of Excellence, London, 2006

(^{13}) People Intelligence in London Boroughs, IES, August 2005

(^{14}) Local Government Workforce: The Hidden Resource, ALG, August 2005

(^{15}) National studies programme, Audit Commission, 2006/07 - Making Better Use of Information to Drive Improvement in Public Services. Local Government People Management Performance

A consortium of eight London boroughs - supported by London Councils - engaged Valuentis, a professional services firm, to measure and evaluate their people management practice. A methodology developed by Valuentis was used.

The evaluation is based on eight human capital management drivers; one of which is workforce intelligence. Valuentis contend that any organisational performance related to human capital/HCM requires competence in data/intelligence and measurement. Without it, it is difficult to provide any meaningful assessment of value/contribution/progress. Any assessment of organisational performance is meaningless without some form of measurement whether in data format or more sophisticated metrics.

Certain themes emerged across the consortium boroughs (not necessarily common to all boroughs). Two findings which are of interest in the context of this report are:

- Inconsistent or limited use of workforce intelligence, with limited linkage to decision making. A lack of management insight on people inevitably leads to an environment of poorer decision-making and/or poorer organisational performance as a result.

- Limited evidence of effective workforce planning - given the high reliance on a wide range of skill sets within councils and the potentially costly use of agency staff, this is likely to affect costs and levels of productivity/output.

London Councils will be integrating these findings in its work with its workforce intelligence group and the IES.

IMPROVING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

London Councils - in conjunction with a number of boroughs - have undertaken the following work aimed at developing knowledge and skills.

Workforce Intelligence Group.

A workforce intelligence group has been established. The objective of the group is to develop boroughs’ ability to systematically collate, analyse, manipulate and report workforce intelligence as an aid to effective decision making.

The group meets on a quarterly basis and is supported by an online web resource.

Workforce Intelligence Workshops

A number of workshops have been organised; for example: (1) Getting Started in Workforce Planning and (2) Analytics and Building Your Workforce Planning and Analytics Capability. Offering staff in the boroughs the opportunity to improve their knowledge and skills will continue.

IMPROVEMENT ACTION: KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE

The London Centre of Excellence initiative aims to provide the boroughs with information on agency staff and consultants working for London local government, and to allow comparisons between providers. It will enable: • benchmarking of cost and use of these workers between boroughs • trend analysis of cost and use of these workers to be undertaken over time

A particular benefit of this project will be the development and use of better occupational coding systems and definitions, including in key skills shortage areas.

IMPROVEMENT ACTION: HR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

This government-funded programme allowed boroughs to access ten different development modules, including one looking at workforce analysis and planning. As well as giving the individual participants a chance to undertake action learning on this topic over a number of months, a tangible product was produced. This is available on a micro site within the Improvement and Employment section of the London Councils website for all boroughs to share the benefit of the group’s learning.16

The research project - People Intelligence in London Boroughs – referred to above was also part of this programme.

IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS: INPUT INTO NATIONAL INITIATIVES

London Councils is working with the national employers on the following two projects.

The Future Local Government Workforce

This Local Government Analysis and Research Unit (LGAR) project aims to consolidate what is already known about the future local government workforce, and to consider what additionally might be done to develop a better picture(s), vision(s) or scenarios of the local government workforce in 2015.

Occupational Coding System/National Minimum Dataset

In an attempt to overcome the fragmented approach to profiling the workforce LGAR is developing the Local Government Minimum Dataset (NMD)17. London Councils is working closely with LGAR in an attempt to ensure the London boroughs have an input in to its development and thus influence the output.

One major aspect of this dataset is the development of an occupational classification system for local government which is essential to allow accurate benchmarking of occupational data. Through London Councils, LGAR has been working with eight London boroughs to develop this classification system, which is based on the Office for National Statistics Standard Occupational Classification 2000, and the plan is that it be will ready by the end of this financial year.

Additionally, specific NMDs are also being developed for Social Care (Skills for Care) and the Schools Workforce Census (Department for Education and Skills).

16 http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/doc.asp?docId=17937 17 http://www.lgar.local.gov.uk/lgv/core/page.do?pageId=12810 Appendix I

Base Workforce Information 2005/06: Results Including Not Known

### Age (Including Not Known)

| Occupation /Age | 16 to 24 | 25 to 39 | 40 to 49 | 50 to 64 | 65 and older | Not Known | Total | |-----------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|--------------|-----------|-------| | SW CC ASW | 0% | 28% | 38% | 31% | 1% | 3% | 100% | | SW - Children & Families | 1% | 41% | 31% | 20% | 0% | 7% | 100% | | Transport Engineering | 3% | 24% | 28% | 35% | 1% | 9% | 100% | | Environment Health | 2% | 35% | 32% | 24% | 0% | 8% | 100% | | Planning | 4% | 42% | 27% | 23% | 0% | 4% | 100% | | **Total** | 2% | 38% | 31% | 23% | 0% | 6% | 100% |

### Gender (Including Not Known)

| Occupation /Gender | Male | Female | Not Known | Total | |--------------------|------|--------|-----------|-------| | SW CC ASW | 37% | 60% | 3% | 100% | | SW - Children & Families | 20% | 73% | 7% | 100% | | Transport Engineering | 76% | 21% | 4% | 100% | | Environment Health | 55% | 41% | 4% | 100% | | Planning | 57% | 40% | 3% | 100% | | **Total** | 35% | 59% | 5% | 100% |

### Ethnicity (Including Not Known)

| Occupation /Ethnicity | White | Mixed | Asian | Black | Chinese | Other | Not Known | Total | |-----------------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------|-------|-----------|-------| | SW CC ASW | 62% | 2% | 6% | 23% | 1% | 1% | 5% | 100% | | SW - Children & Families | 45% | 3% | 7% | 29% | 0% | 3% | 13% | 100% | | Transport Engineer | 63% | 1% | 15% | 10% | 1% | 3% | 7% | 100% | | Environment Health | 68% | 2% | 6% | 15% | 1% | 1% | 8% | 100% | | Planning | 75% | 1% | 6% | 8% | 2% | 1% | 8% | 100% | | **Total** | 55% | 2% | 7% | 22% | 1% | 2% | 10% | 100% |

## Appendix II

### Survey Results

#### Vacancy Data - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - 2005/06 (April 2006)

| Occupation | Funded Posts (FTEs) | Employees in Post | Employees in Post (FTEs) | Vacant Posts (FTEs) | Vacancy Rate | Percent of Posts Vacant | |--------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|--------------|------------------------| | SW - Community Care | 3930.5 | 3269 | 3080.2 | 850.3 | 21.6% | 24.9% | | SW - C & F | 5290.1 | 4138 | 3909.4 | 1380.7 | 26.1% | 40.4% | | SW - Residential | 1221.2 | 1077 | 984.1 | 237.1 | 19.4% | 6.9% | | Building Control | 560.8 | 463 | 455.8 | 105.0 | 18.7% | 3.1% | | Transport Engineering | 702.2 | 609 | 494.0 | 208.2 | 29.7% | 6.1% | | Environment Health | 1097.1 | 940 | 901.9 | 195.3 | 17.8% | 5.7% | | Trading Standards | 446.2 | 386 | 361.8 | 84.4 | 18.9% | 2.5% | | Planning | 1394.1 | 1082 | 1039.1 | 355.0 | 25.5% | 10.4% | | **Total** | **14642.2** | **11964** | **11226.3** | **3415.9** | **23.3%** | |

- Average number of vacancies per borough: 104
- Percentage vacancies in social worker occupations: 72%
- Percentage vacancies in other occupations: 28%

#### Vacancy Data - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs - 2004/05 (April 2005)

| Occupation | Funded Posts (FTEs) | Employees in Post | Employees in Post (FTEs) | Vacant Posts (FTEs) | Vacancy Rate | Percent of Posts Vacant | |--------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|--------------|------------------------| | SW - Community Care | 3825.0 | 3029 | 2898.4 | 926.7 | 24.2% | 25.5% | | SW - C & F | 5219.8 | 3979 | 3742.2 | 1477.6 | 28.3% | 40.7% | | SW - Residential | 1096.2 | 902 | 859.7 | 236.5 | 21.6% | 6.5% | | Building Control | 611.4 | 507 | 493.5 | 117.9 | 19.3% | 3.3% | | Transport Engineering | 756.4 | 538 | 525.8 | 230.7 | 30.5% | 6.4% | | Environment Health | 1140.6 | 974 | 937.2 | 203.4 | 17.8% | 5.6% | | Trading Standards | 431.9 | 368 | 344.6 | 87.3 | 20.2% | 2.4% | | Planning | 1240.7 | 939 | 892.7 | 348.0 | 28.0% | 9.6% | | **Total** | **14322.0** | **11235.0** | **10693.9** | **3628.0** | **25.3%** | |

- Average number of vacancies per borough: 110

- Percentage vacancies in social worker occupations: 73%

- Percentage vacancies in other occupations: 27% | Occupation | Funded Posts (FTEs) | Employees in Post | Employees in Post (FTEs) | Vacant Posts (FTEs) | Vacancy Rate | Percent of Posts Vacant | |---------------------|---------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|--------------|------------------------| | SW - Community Care | 3294.7 | 2691 | 2499.2 | 795.6 | 24.1% | 24.6% | | SW - C & F | 4450.3 | 3340 | 3141.9 | 1308.4 | 29.4% | 40.4% | | SW - Residential | 1416.6 | 1105 | 1050.9 | 365.7 | 25.8% | 11.3% | | Building Control | 525.1 | 436 | 433.2 | 91.9 | 17.5% | 2.8% | | Transport Engineering | 673.6 | 512 | 488.1 | 185.5 | 27.5% | 5.7% | | Environment Health | 1005.9 | 896 | 865.3 | 140.6 | 14.0% | 4.3% | | Trading Standards | 366.0 | 323 | 286.4 | 79.6 | 21.7% | 2.5% | | Planning | 1036.2 | 818 | 765.9 | 270.4 | 26.1% | 8.4% | | **Totals** | **12768.4** | **10121** | **9530.8** | **3237.6** | **25.4%** | |

- Average number of vacancies per borough: 100

- Percentage vacancies in social worker occupations: 76%

- Percentage vacancies in other occupations: 24%

### Appendix III: Age, Gender & Ethnicity - Selected Occupations - London Boroughs – 2003/04 to 2005/06

#### SW CC, ASW only

| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |-----------|--------|-----------| | 16 to 24 | Male | White | | 25 to 39 | Female | Mixed | | 40 to 49 | | Asian | | 50 to 64 | | Black | | 65 and older | | Chinese | | 2003/04 | 1% | 65% | | 2004/05 | 0% | 60% | | 2005/06 | 0% | 65% |

#### SW - Children & Families

| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |-----------|--------|-----------| | 16 to 24 | Male | White | | 25 to 39 | Female | Mixed | | 40 to 49 | | Asian | | 50 to 64 | | Black | | 65 and older | | Chinese | | 2003/04 | 1% | 51% | | 2004/05 | 1% | 53% | | 2005/06 | 1% | 52% |

#### Transport Engineering

| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |-----------|--------|-----------| | 16 to 24 | Male | White | | 25 to 39 | Female | Mixed | | 40 to 49 | | Asian | | 50 to 64 | | Black | | 65 and older | | Chinese | | 2003/04 | 4% | 81% | | 2004/05 | 2% | 82% | | 2005/06 | 3% | 79% |

#### Environmental Health

| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |-----------|--------|-----------| | 16 to 24 | Male | White | | 25 to 39 | Female | Mixed | | 40 to 49 | | Asian | | 50 to 64 | | Black | | 65 and older | | Chinese | | 2003/04 | 2% | 62% | | 2004/05 | 1% | 61% | | 2005/06 | 2% | 57% |

#### Planning

| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |-----------|--------|-----------| | 16 to 24 | Male | White | | 25 to 39 | Female | Mixed | | 40 to 49 | | Asian | | 50 to 64 | | Black | | 65 and older | | Chinese | | 2003/04 | 4% | 60% | | 2004/05 | 4% | 57% | | 2005/06 | 4% | 59% |

#### Overall - Five Occupations Listed

| Age | Gender | Ethnicity | |-----------|--------|-----------| | 16 to 24 | Male | White | | 25 to 39 | Female | Mixed | | 40 to 49 | | Asian | | 50 to 64 | | Black | | 65 and older | | Chinese | | 2003/04 | 2.0% | 62.2% | | 2004/05 | 1.4% | 61.6% | | 2005/06 | 1.8% | 61.2% |

Note: (1) Figures based on actual data provided; the ‘not known’ percentages are approximately 30% for all categories in 2003/04, 10% to 19% in 2004/05 and 5% to 10% in 2005/06. Some of this improvement is because it was possible to make estimates based on replies for earlier surveys. Appendix IV

Recruitment and Retention Initiatives

| Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|---------------------------------------| | OLB26 | All social work positions re-graded; senior/principal practitioner posts introduced to deputise for managers and deal with complex case loads; ‘Step Into’ website established to show vacancies on a permanent basis. | | OLB27 | Two increments are awarded for ASW status and participation in the rota. | | OLB28 | Once social workers become ‘approved’ they can go up to PO2 and obtain entitlement to two additional increments (SCP 41-42). This is based on information indicating that SCP 41 is a common SCP for ASWs. This is still keeping a balance between recruiting and retaining staff in this area, which is an improvement on previous practices. However, assessing the effectiveness of these initiatives will continue through 2006. | | ILB30 | Review of pay and benefits in July 2005. Previous R&R benefits (golden handcuffs and travel allowances) converted to a market supplement of six SCP’s (added to top of grade, but also applied to each individual at social worker, senior practitioner and team manager levels). Positive impact - reduced vacancy and turnover levels, and reduced reliance on agency staff. Wider market position currently under review. | | OLB33 | Two additional increments for ASWs; increased the forensic lead payment for forensic social workers. | | ILB01 | ASWs have a career grade scheme to enable them to progress quickly through the social work grade. In addition, ASWs receive key worker housing and car user allowance. A ‘10% of salary’ payment is made to new employees to the borough as a ‘golden hello’ and a further 10% of salary is paid after each completed twelve months of service. | | OLB04 | Once a social worker is ‘approved’ they are escalated to SCP 44 (the highest social worker SCP). | | ILB09 | Extended pay range from SCP 41 to SCP 43 and introduced accelerated pay scales for newly qualified staff. Free Zones 1 & 2 travel card for hard to recruit posts. This has resulted in a low turnover in ASWs. | | ILB10 | Borough is currently reviewing allowances and payments to emergency duty social workers. |

______________________________________________________________________

18 As reported in the borough’s response to the 2005/06 survey; certain proposed actions may now be implemented, given the time which has elapsed since receiving the reply and reporting the results. | Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|--------------------------------------| | OLB15 | Since 2001 the borough has initiated and implemented a number of actions/schemes to tackle the recruitment and retention difficulties with social workers. Including the re-grading of all social work practitioner staff, including team managers, whereby social workers benefit by at least two additional SCPs. Also performance related pay (PRP) was introduced to all social work staff (£1,500 per annum) and in addition to this social workers who work in the children's teams and/or are approved status are entitled to a market supplement of £3,000 every two years. The borough has also undertaken overseas recruitment campaigns, attended major job fairs and university/college open days, held its own open days and improved its promotional material and literature. The borough has also highlighted the employee benefits of working for the organisation, including the relocation package and access to key worker accommodation. | | OLB16 | Introduced and maintained pay supplements for new and existing staff a few years ago and in the main this has stabilised the position. Borough in line with national position, however, this remains a difficult area. | | ILB18 | Turnover and vacancy levels are low and there is a well organised ASW warranting panel and portfolio system which is a model of good practice. The ‘social work career pathways scheme’ is both a recruitment and retention tool as it awards incremental advancement linked to the gaining of extra qualifications, as well as allowing staff to remain in practice without having to progress by taking on managerial responsibilities. There are a wide range of specialised posts in the ASW service and a degree of rotation within the service between them. | | ILB20 | Offer a higher salary than average in London boroughs, training and a caseload of no more than twelve. | | OLB21 | The borough continues with its ‘grow your own’ strategies and four members of staff have enrolled on the ASW programme in 2006. It is a requirement for all staff in mental health to qualify as ASW. |

### Social Worker - Children & Families

| Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|---------------------------------------| | OLB26 | Dedicated micro sites for recruitment and regular informal recruitment evenings - called pizza evenings - have almost eliminated recruitment shortfalls. | | OLB27 | The borough has a £3,000 bursary available to all final year social work students who are successfully appointed to SW posts in borough’s child care teams, subject to successful completion of their qualification. Borough has also introduced two new trainee social work positions for external applicants who wish to undertake the SW qualification with a view to them being employed by the borough for a period of two years (post qualification). | | OLB28 | A retention allowance of £1,200 has been applied to qualified social worker posts in children’s services since October 2003. This is paid as a lump sum on each anniversary of a social worker's employment. Those in post on or before 1 October 2002 receive it on the 1 October each year. It is paid pro-rata to part-time staff. Payment to those who may have prolonged sickness absence is considered carefully according to individual circumstances. Those who may be given notice of dismissal due to misconduct or incapability will not receive a payment. Link grades (PO4-5) have also been developed for all team managers (including children’s services), to attract staff to hard to recruit to posts. Monitoring will continue through 2006 to assess the effectiveness of these R&R initiatives, and feedback indicates that they have created a balance between recruiting and retaining staff in this area, which is an improvement on previous practices. | | ILB30 | Review of pay and benefits in July 2005. Previous R&R benefits (golden handcuffs and travel allowances) converted to a market supplement of six SCP’s (added to top of grade, but also applied to each individual at social worker, senior practitioner and team manager levels). Positive impact - reduced vacancy and turnover levels, and reduced reliance on agency staff. Wider market position currently under review. | | OLB33 | Salary increase this year; deleted increments from the ‘level three’ scale to ensure quicker progression, £3,500 bursary offered to newly qualified social workers, annual retention payment of £1,500 and increased pay in child protection by £3,000 per year. | | ILB01 | Career grade scheme as an incentive for quick progression through the social worker grade. In addition key worker housing and car user allowances are offered. A ‘10% of salary’ payment is made to new employees to the borough as a ‘golden hello’ and a further 10% of salary is paid after each completed twelve months of service. | | Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|--------------------------------------| | OLB04 | Graduate trainees: sponsoring graduates to undertake a MA with the guarantee of a job on successful completion of the course. A total of fifteen newly qualified staff have been offered permanent jobs. The initiative is planned again for later this year. Several of the initiatives planned for this financial year have been put on hold until later when the JAR is completed. In addition to their salary social workers receive a £1,000 payment. When first introduced this proved to be beneficial in attracting social workers, however, the majority of other London boroughs are now offering similar or better salary packages and borough is finding it increasingly difficult. | | OLB05 | - The design and evaluation of a new remuneration and benefits package to attract and retain new and existing staff.

- The design of a recruitment strategy and initiatives to attract and retain new staff.

- The development of a strategy to support reducing the number of agency staff in the service.

- The design of a training and development strategy to develop the skills and capacity of the workforce.

- Design of a strategy to develop leadership capacity within the service. | | OLB08 | Overseas recruitment, USA and India (six social workers recruited in July 2006), in tandem with a trainee social worker scheme and rolling recruitment in the UK. Paper on USA recruitment provided. Refer Appendix V for the full case study. | | ILB09 | Introduced accelerated pay scales for newly qualified staff and retention bonus of up to £2,500 for qualified staff. Free Zones 1 & 2 travel card for hard to recruit posts. Resulted in significantly reduced turnover. | | ILB10 | Dedicated recruitment campaigns, specific targeted advertising and micro websites, recruitment fairs for all social workers. Benefits have been improved as well as progression criteria so that social workers progress through the range faster. Continue to pay a market supplement to all child protection social workers. Implementation of a neutral vendor system to control spend on agency staff | | Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|--------------------------------------| | OLB15 | Since 2001 the borough has initiated and implemented a number of actions/schemes to tackle the recruitment and retention difficulties with social workers. Including the re-grading of all social work practitioner staff, including team managers, whereby social workers benefit by at least two additional SCPs. Also performance related pay (PRP) was introduced to all social work staff (£1,500 per annum) and in addition to this social workers who work in the children's teams and/or are approved status are entitled to a market supplement of £3,000 every two years. The borough has also undertaken overseas recruitment campaigns, attended major job fairs and university/college open days, held its own open days and made improvements to promotional material and literature. The borough has also highlighted the employee benefits of working for the organisation, including the relocation package and access to key worker accommodation. | | OLB16 | Introduced and maintained pay supplements for new and existing staff a few years ago and in the main this has stabilised the position. Also leading edge work in relation to setting up a ‘children’s trust’ has been a positive influence. | | ILB18 | The ‘children's directorate’ engages in a number of activities including trainee schemes and bursaries through links with local colleges to promote the service to prospective applicants. Regular entry and exit surveys are conducted: borough found that its reputation for training and development was cited as the main reason for joining by 23% of new starters. Social workers enjoy protected caseloads and team administrative support and there has been heavy investment in IT. A number of overseas social workers have been recruited and a support group has been formed to help overseas recruits become acquainted with social work practice in the UK. | | OLB19 | Posts re-graded upwards under single status. Enhanced annual leave scheme introduced for qualified social workers. Payment of GSCC fee. Measures are fairly recent so too early to assess effectiveness. | | ILB20 | Offer a higher salary than average in London boroughs, training and a caseload of no more than twelve. | | OLB21 | The borough has contracted Tribal Resourcing to work specifically on its social work recruitment campaigns, which included sponsoring ‘Community Care Live - Children & Families’, developing a micro site for candidates to register and a high profile media recruitment campaign. | | Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|--------------------------------------| | OLB26 | No specific initiatives as the numbers of staff have remained stable. | | OLB28 | Car leasing payment paid to key engineering posts (equivalent to the market supplement previously paid). | | ILB30 | Current R&R initiatives for traffic engineers comprises a 7-10% recruitment and retention supplement, a Zone 1 & 2 travel card, payment of professional subscription fees and golden handcuffs for some positions. The introduction of the market supplement has worked with more senior staff as a retention tool. A review of the current R&R packages in this area will be taking place in the next few months. | | ILB01 | Service is to be restructured shortly to put in place a second tier structure. Strategic matters dealt with by the senior assistant director and other duties shared. | | OLB04 | Some posts receive ‘grade plus one increment’. A training scheme is being planned to attract young people and to enable borough to ‘grow its own. A transport planner receives a market supplement of £4,000 per annum. | | ILB09 | Free Zones 1 & 2 travel card for hard to recruit posts. | | ILB10 | Examining possibility of market supplement for highways engineers. | | OLB15 | The primary purpose of this scheme is to retain the services of experienced and qualified staff. |

- Eligibility for a market supplement payment under this scheme is limited to staff in the following posts: group leaders / service unit managers and principal officers.

- The ‘scheme’ will be offered to all staff in the above posts. Payments under this scheme do not count as pensionable pay and will be made in the form of six monthly payments, paid on 15 March and 15 September each year, based on the six months preceding 1 March and 1 September respectively.

- The payments under this scheme are inclusive of the payments previously paid to staff as supplements. From the date that this scheme is implemented, all previous supplements will cease.

- Payment will only be made to an eligible officer who is in employment and has not given notice between the relevant dates i.e. 1 September to 1 March.

- The levels of payment are justified by market rate data. The levels of payment will be reviewed six monthly, or at any time that a significant change in the market rate data becomes apparent. Payments may be increased, reduced or ended following such a review.

Three months’ notice will be given of any proposed reduction in the level of supplement. | Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|--------------------------------------| | OLB16 | Introduced and maintained pay supplements for new and existing staff a few years ago and in the main this has stabilised the position. The service has been restructured which went some way to assisting the borough in this problem area. | | ILB18 | Service has recently been reorganised (within the last year) with consequential upgrading for some roles. The borough, due to the nature of the work and its previous inability to recruit staff (the area has been nearly exclusively agency workers), has entered into a partnering arrangement with a major transport industry consultancy. As part of the partnership arrangement the consultancy will provide staff to cover a number of 'roles'. Additional information is available from the department. |

### Environmental Health

| Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|---------------------------------------| | OLB28 | Market supplement paid to environmental health officers. | | ILB30 | Current recruitment and retention initiatives for environmental health officers are a £2,000 ‘golden hello’ and a recruitment and retention supplement of 7%. The R&R packages have had some success; however a thorough analysis of the packages will be undertaken over the summer. | | ILB01 | Four people on traineeships, two on positive training action highway, linking of grades. | | ILB09 | Free Zones 1 & 2 travel card for hard to recruit posts. | | OLB04 | Grade plus one increment (the same is provided for trading standards). | | ILB03 | Market supplement of £4,500 still in place for environmental health officers who can competently and independently carry out the full range of food hygiene duties: including inspections of category A & B premises and the ability to utilise the full range of enforcement powers, on a daily basis, as a primary function of their substantive post. The supplement is only payable to field officers with a two year continuous and current experience in the full range of food safety functions. | | OLB15 | As per traffic and/or transportation engineer. |

### Planning

| Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|---------------------------------------| | OLB26 | Specific application packs have been introduced for planning posts; ‘conversion’ of agency staff to permanent employees has ensured a stable position. | | OLB27 | Borough has successfully recruited to four ‘career graded’ planning assistant posts. Employees started with borough in June/July 2006. | | OLB28 | Market supplement paid to planning officers. | | ILB30 | Current recruitment and retention initiatives within planning are: Zone 1 & 2 travel cards for all planners; a 7% recruitment and retention supplement at PO3 and above; and payment of professional subscription fees. The packages have had limited success at higher grades. | | ILB01 | Restructured to give staff higher grades at senior level. Also extended career grade bands. Recruitment - advertised a six-month secondment from amongst internal candidates in the borough. Training to be given. | | ILB03 | Career grade scheme for planning officers Level I extended to PO2. | | OLB05 | Market factor supplements. | | OLB08 | Key worker housing. Also graduate trainee scheme introduced summer 2005, recruited one graduate to planning - post entry training offered. | | ILB09 | Free Zones 1 & 2 travel card for hard to recruit posts. | | OLB15 | As per traffic and/or transportation engineer. | | OLB16 | Introduced and maintained pay supplements for new and existing staff a few years ago and in the main this has stabilised the position. In addition PATH initiative has been used to good effect in this area. | | ILB18 | This service has recently been reorganised. The borough is actively going in to the market place to fill roles at all levels within the department. As part of the package offered to prospective candidates is a performance payment of up to 10% of salary for those at team leader level (base pay range £37k to £43k); this has attracted more candidates than previous recruitment exercises. The department is currently (June 2006) considering if an additional benefits package to attract candidates should be used across the department. Additional information is available from the department. | | OLB19 | Grade and career structure reviewed with combination of increased grade and market pay; not yet implemented - aim to reduce dependency on agency staff and introduce a viable career grade scheme. | | ILB20 | Key worker property offered. |

### Other Recruitment and Retention Initiatives

| Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|---------------------------------------| | OLB27 | The borough has introduced a career grade scheme for assistant building control officers and building control officers and will be advertising for these posts in September 2006. | | OLB28 | Ad hoc recruitment campaigns still take place, within children and families and housing and community care, to bring in planned numbers of social work assistants. The aim of this is to plan for the future workforce needs, by recruiting staff and providing training opportunities. It is expected that social work assistants will go on to qualify as social workers. Work-life balance and flexible working schemes have been introduced across the borough. Borough has fully implemented a computerised employee records database. This enables the borough to more effectively track staff movements and other employee data such as age profiles and ethnicity. A recruitment module has been implemented which enhances borough’s monitoring of R&R initiatives. | | OLB29 | Introduction of on-line recruitment, changes to advertising methods, work with agencies to negotiate lower introduction fees for permanent staff, talent management including graduate trainee, grow-your-own and ‘No quits’ policy, pay reviews for hard to recruit staff, social care workshops for years 10-13, and fast-track appointment processes. | | OLB04 | On-line recruitment was introduced earlier this year and early figures indicate that although it has been very successful in attracting applications from candidates applying for middle to senior level manager vacancies, those applying for other vacancies still prefer to apply on a paper form. The borough recognises that it has a lot of work to do in order to encourage candidates for lower graded and non-office based jobs to use the on-line facility. A range of job fairs have been arranged in order to attract care assistants to work for the borough again, these have proved successful and a total of fifteen care assistants were appointed to jobs. | | OLB33 | Raised salaries for social workers - adults’ and managers in line with children’s services. Introduced retention payments of £1,500 per year. | | Borough | Recruitment and Retention Initiatives | |---------|--------------------------------------| | OLB05 | The borough is working in partnership with Capita Resourcing. One of the three projects already agreed is the First Contact Centre. The borough’s vision for First Contact is to significantly enhance the way that it interacts with customers. It wants to provide modern services that staff can be proud of and that customers can expect. The approach taken to recruit people into the First Contact Centre.

- Research led attraction strategy: ensure borough reached a diverse audience; target potential audience and ensure budget was used effectively.
- Micro Site: used to sell the opportunities; contact rich, reducing advertising copy/cost.
- On-line/paper applications: convenient to candidate's individual needs.
- Siftability: to reduce initial applicant pool to manageable numbers.
- Assessment centres: effectively rank and measure candidate ability. | | OLB08 | Graduate trainee and key worker housing schemes applicable to other employees apart from planning. These schemes have been successful but limited in scope, for example, four graduate trainees recruited in 2005 (HR, planning, asset management and civil engineering) and two more in 2006 (asset management and civil engineering). | | ILB10 | Regular salary benchmarking/advert trawls conducted. Looking to roll out neutral vendor system across the borough. Developing social worker masters degree training programmes for borough residents. | | OLB19 | Market incentives targeted at roles with proven R&R difficulties and clear market pay shortfalls; concentrated on services to the public including qualified social workers and planners. | Appendix V

Recruitment of Social Workers from the USA

The following is a brief case study on how a borough successfully recruited social workers from the USA as a part of a three-pronged strategy to tackle its recruitment and retention difficulties. It is reproduced with the kind permission of the borough.

The case for improvement

As of March 2004 there were vacancies in the children and families division for:

- 32 social workers
- 4 senior social workers
- 6 assistant team managers
- 1 deputy team manager
- 6 team managers
- 2 service managers

Recruitment campaigns over the previous year had proved to be very expensive, and at the time, the most recent campaign had resulted in one offer for a service manager and six social workers.

The borough had a rolling programme of advertising with costs for a single job advert between £3k to £4k and for a composite advert between £8 to £9k. They had also taken part in various job fairs - Community Care Live, Kingston University which did not attract a single applicant.

A number of boroughs began recruiting from abroad as clearly there is now a national shortage of social workers. The borough’s decision to recruit from abroad was part of a three-pronged strategy:

- Recruit from overseas
- Continue with trainee social workers
- Recruit from within the UK

Vacancies were being covered by agency workers which have both financial and ethical consequences. On average the extra cost per year to cover the vacant posts with agency staff was £19,000 per annum per social worker; and continuity of service for children and families is severely impaired when staff are temporary. Further, the differential in pay and sense of commitment to the customers and organisation can and has caused friction between temporary and permanent staff.

Proposals for improvement

In March 2004 the service manager children & families (policy and organisational development) and the strategic HR manager began looking at agencies which recruit from abroad. There are large numbers of agencies which provide this service. Together they created the following selection criteria:

- Proven track record in overseas recruitment within public sector
- Ability to provide different levels of staff
- Track record on recruiting an ethnic mix of staff
- Good references from other boroughs
- Value for money
- UK base
- Capacity to provide staff in ‘trickles’ as well as larger campaigns
- Any extra benefits offered by the agency

Six agencies were interviewed with TTM providing the best package. The borough concluded that the Australian market had been well tested and probably exhausted at present and decided to ‘look to’ the USA and Canada.

TTM recommended recruitment from the USA and three campaigns were undertaken: initially in Los Angeles (July 2004) and Boston (November 2004) aiming to recruit ten children & families social workers on each occasion. Following this the borough contracted with TTM for a third trip (New York) in June 2005 to recruit ten children & families and ten mental health social workers. Figures for each trip are as follows:

| City/Information | Offers | Starters | Cost | |------------------|--------|----------|-------| | | C&F | MH | Total | | | Los Angeles | 14 | 1 | 15 | £29,778 | | Boston | 14 | 0 | 14 | £64,519 | | New York | 16 | 10 | 27 | £94,440 | | Total | 44 | 11 | 56 | £188,697 |

Note: In New York an offer was also made to one ‘older person’s social worker’.

In total thirty-nine staff were recruited at a total cost of just under £190,000. There was an additional cost of £2,000 re-location package per person which TTM administered for the borough. TTM’s contract with the borough allowed for the replacement of staff or reimbursement of fees for any staff that left the department within the first six months.

Staff

The Los Angeles recruits took up to six months to take up their posts as the GSCC registration was coming into effect and there were long delays in registering. Eventually, the borough decided to let staff start as long as they had applied and were awaiting registration and put a clause in their contracts making the offer subject to registration. This meant that the Los Angeles and Boston appointees arrived simultaneously in two batches at the end of January 2005 and end of February 2005. Five of these staff left within six months. Of these two went to other London boroughs, one returned to the USA for family reasons and two decided that they didn't want to do social work in England. Two of the USA recruits are now in senior social worker positions and one is acting assistant team manager. There is a wide range within ethnicity and age, the oldest recruit being fifty-nine.

Resources

- Preparation for the website
- Short listing candidates
- Interviewing
- Recruitment packs marketing the borough
- Welcome packs

There were also resource implications in terms of induction, mentoring and generally settling in and retaining staff. For this purpose the borough employed an ‘overseas support worker’ (OSW) initially on an eighteen hour a week temporary contract. The OSW started just before Christmas 2004 and her contract was extended to full time until December 2005. Work has involved finding accommodation, sorting bank accounts, meeting and greeting, arranging NI numbers, FBI checks, health checks, planning and running the induction programme, focus groups for managers and new recruits in liaison with the strategic HR manager. Due to the time differences in the USA it meant that the OSW had to work very flexible hours.

Of the thirty-two C&F social workers recruited eight (including the five that left in the first six months) have left the department. As indicated TTM will be replacing these free of charge. All eight mental health social workers recruited are still in post.

This whole project has lasted over a year and as stated in the case for improvement is only one strand of a three-pronged approach to recruiting social workers. Clearly, with a national shortage of social workers the borough was looking to recruit overseas staff and had to be careful not to flood the department with one particular group of staff. The results of the investment in the overseas project, recruitment from within the UK and investment in trainee social workers has resulted in the overall vacancy rate drastically reducing from by 51 posts to 16 posts.

The figures by each employee group are as follows.

| Employee Group/ Vacancies as at: | March 2004 | January 2006 | |---------------------------------|------------|--------------| | Social Workers | 32 | 8 | | Senior Social Workers | 4 | 1 | | Assistant Team Managers | 6 | 5 | | Deputy Team Manager | 1 | 0 | | Team Managers | 6 | 2 | | Service Managers | 2 | 0 | Improving through people

Commitment to the project was necessary at all levels within the borough. Clearly for a project of this cost it was necessary to get approval from councillors. Also, buy in had to be worked on with the social work team managers and service managers to integrate a large number of overseas workers who would require extra input in terms of orientation and knowledge about the English system of social work. In conjunction with the overseas support worker the borough ran groups with the aforementioned to gain commitment to this. This was helped by the planned induction programme which lasted two weeks. This involved getting managers to explain about systems here as well as general orientation into the things that living here we just take for granted. For example, setting up a bank account, registering for a doctor, how to get a phone installed, 999 means emergency services. What has become apparent is that although English is the common language, it is very different.

Strategic HR Manager: January 2006 Appendix VI

Related Initiatives

Consideration needs to be given to how the London Councils Recruitment & Retention Strategy fits in to the wider employment agenda.

For example:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAY AND WORKFORCE STRATEGY

Local government is now leading the Local Government Pay and Workforce Strategy (LGPWS), with DCLG taking a supportive back seat. The new LGPWS Steering Group has decided to review the Strategy to ensure that it:

- is fully local government owned; particularly using the opportunity to get Leaders and chief executives on board
- is fully integrated as the ‘people element’ of the new National Improvement Strategy
- supports the implementation of People and Places and the White Paper
- takes account of other key current drivers such as the Varney Review and CSR 2007

AUDIT COMMISSION NATIONAL STUDIES 2007

The Audit Commission national studies programme aims to improve local public services through its independent authoritative analysis of national evidence and local practice. Their national reports address strategic issues affecting specific sectors as well as the public sector as a whole. The research identifies practice that works, highlights emerging findings and examines national trends to influence local practice and national policy.

The following study may be of interest - ‘Public Sector Workforce - Challenges for the Future’. The government is placing increasing importance on pay and productivity in the public sector. This study builds on previous Commission work to explore how local public bodies are preparing for future demands on their workforce.

The project is currently being scoped and contact has been made with the Audit Commission; a response is awaited. Appendix VII

Survey

The survey questionnaire and notes for guidance were emailed to all boroughs on 26 April 2006. The initial closing date was 16 June 2006. Boroughs were updated on the progress of the survey on a number of occasions via emails and meetings.

Response

Twenty-eight out of the thirty-three boroughs provided a partial or full response to the survey. Response by Inner and Outer London is as follows:

| | Number | Percent | |----------|--------|---------| | Inner London | 10 | 77% | | Outer London | 18 | 90% |

Not all boroughs were able to provide full replies; it is therefore problematic to provide exact information on the number of boroughs completing the various parts of the survey.

Data

For the eight occupations combined there are 3,415.9 FTE vacancies. Although this figure is higher than the 3,237.6 reported in 2003/04, the increase was more than ‘offset’ by an increase in the number of ‘funded posts’ reported. Hence the decease in the overall vacancy rate - falling from 25.4% to 23.3% - over 2003/04 to 2005/06.

For the 2004/05 and 2005/06 surveys the total number of ‘funded posts’ reported was broadly similar - 14,322.0 and 14,642.2 respectively. The total number of vacant posts reported decreased by just over two hundred - 3,628.0 to 3,415.9 - and the vacancy rate fell by two percentage points, 25.3% to 23.3%.

Data Distribution

The table overleaf shows the ‘data distribution’ for both surveys using ‘funded posts’ and ‘percent of posts vacant’ as reference points.

The figures reveal that the data distribution for all three surveys is broadly similar, although there are some variations. The variations, at least to some extent, may be accounted for by the difficulties some boroughs have in classifying jobs into meaningful occupational groups.

### Funded/Vacant Posts Distribution by Occupation

| Occupation | Funded Posts (FTEs) | Percent of Posts Vacant | |-----------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------| | | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | | SW - Community Care | 26% | 27% | 27% | 25% | 26% | 25% | | SW - Children & Families | 35% | 36% | 35% | 40% | 41% | 40% | | SW - Residential | 11% | 8% | 9% | 11% | 7% | 7% | | Building Control | 4% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 3% | | Transport Engineering | 5% | 5% | 4% | 6% | 6% | 6% | | Environment Health | 8% | 8% | 8% | 4% | 6% | 6% | | Trading Standards | 3% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 2% | | Planning | 8% | 9% | 9% | 8% | 10% | 10% |

Note: For example, the ‘percent of vacant posts’ column shows the relative position of each group, so, for example, 40% of all the vacancies identified in the 2003/04 survey are in social workers - children & families.

### Grossing

#### Part A: Recruitment and Retention

In order to make an estimate of the total number of vacancies any data missing from the survey returns was estimated, or grossed, using patterns or relationships observed in those boroughs that did respond. Non-respondents were grossed to the equivalent of a 100% response. For example, vacancies rates were estimated by assuming that the average rates among responding boroughs hold true for non-respondents.

#### Part B: Workforce Information

The information shown in this part of the report is not grossed and is based on the actual data provided. Including boroughs that did not provide data would result in ‘not known’ figures of approximately 5% to 10%, and decreases in the other percentages accordingly.

Please refer to the survey notes for guidance for the definitions used in the survey.

### Appendix VIII: Examples of Jobs in Each Occupation Covered by the Survey

| SW CC | SW CC – ASW | SW C & F | SW Residential | Building Control | Transportation Engineer | Environmental Health | Trading Standards | Planning | |-------|-------------|----------|----------------|------------------|------------------------|----------------------|------------------|----------| | Care Manager | Approved Team Manager | Social Worker | Assistant Residential Manager | Building Control Officer/ Surveyor | Engineer/ Traffic Engineer | Environmental Health Officer | Trading Standards Officer | Career Grade Planner | | Senior Care Manager | Practice Manager | Senior Social Worker | Residential Social Worker | District Building Control Officer | Project Engineer | Enforcement Senior Enforcement Officer | Senior Trading Standards Officer | Senior Planner | | Qualified Social Worker | Approved Social Worker | Senior Practitioner | Team Leader | Senior Building Control Officer/ Surveyor | Traffic Commissioning Officer | Senior Health Officer | Trading Standards Enforcement Officer | Senior Planning Officer | | Social Worker | Duty Social Worker | Placement Manager | Care Officer | Principal Building Control Officer/ Surveyor | Assistant/Senior Transportation Officer | Area Environmental Health Officer | Area Trading Standards Officer | Planning Officer | | Senior Social Worker | Senior Practitioner | Team Manager | Senior RSW | Team Leader | Senior Engineer | Safety Enforcement Officer | Commercial Standards Officer | Principal Planner | | Senior Practitioner | Team Leader | Assistant Team Manager | Residential Manager | Group Building Control Surveyor | Transport Officer | Operations Manager | Operations Manager | Principal Planning Officer | | Team Manager | Team Manager | Consultant Practitioner | Senior Practitioner | Section Manager | Project Engineer | Assistant Unit Manager | Assistant Unit Manager | Planning Officer / Enforcement Officer | | Senior Practitioner | Team Manager | Home Manager | Enforcement Officer | Principal Engineer | Team Leader | Principal Trading Standards Officer | Planner | | Case Support Manager | Team Leader | Principal Transport Planner/Engineer | Principal Environmental Health Officer | Principal Enforcement Officer | Group Planner | | | Team Leader/ Deputy Officer in Charge | Development & Transport Planning Manager | Section Manager | Team Leader | Team Leader/Area Team Leader | | | Deputy Care Manager | Principal Traffic Engineers | Group Manager | Fair Trading Officer | Planning Manager | | | Senior Residential Social Worker | Principal Transportation Officer | Assistant Team Manager | Specialist Team Leader | Project Manager | | | Officer in Charge | Section Manager | Lead Environmental Health Officer | Section Manager | Area Manager | | | Assistant Manager | Senior Project Engineer | Assistant Area Planning Officer | | | Principal Residential SW | Senior Engineer Traffic | Section Manager | | Borough | 2005/06 | 2004/05 | 2003/04 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking & Dagenham | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Barnet | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Bexley | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Brent | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Bromley | ✓ | NR | ✓ | | Camden | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Croydon | NR | ✓ | ✓ | | Ealing | NR | ✓ | NR | | Enfield | ✓ | NR | ✓ | | Greenwich | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Hackney | NR | ✓ | ✓ | | Hammersmith & Fulham | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Haringey | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Harrow | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Havering | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Hillingdon | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Hounslow | ✓ | NR | ✓ | | Islington | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Kensington & Chelsea | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Kingston upon Thames | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Lambeth | NR | NR | ✓ | | Lewisham | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Merton | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Newham | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Redbridge | ✓ | ✓ | NR | | Richmond | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Southwark | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Sutton | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Tower Hamlets | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Waltham Forest | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Wandsworth | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Westminster | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | City of London | NR | ✓ | ✓ | | **Total** | **28** | **29** | **31** |